Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Ashoknagar Police Station vs Murugan S/O. Madhurai on 10 January, 2022

          IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M
               MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
                 Dated: The 10th January 2022
                 PRESENT: Sri.G.R.KULKARNI,
                                          B.A.(LAW)., LL.B.,
                 XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

                         C.C.No.54988/2021

COMPLAINANT :-                      State by Ashoknagar Police Station
                                    (By Sr.APP)

ACCUSED :-                             Murugan s/o. Madhurai
                                       Aged 46 years,
                                       R/at.No.55/5, 7th Cross,
                                       Rose Garden, Neelasandra,
                                       Bengaluru.

                                    (By G.A.Shariff & Associates., Advocate)

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT                                 28.10.2021
OF EVIDENCE

DATE OF CLOSING OF                                   01.12.2021
EVIDENCE

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                     10.01.2022

                              JUDGMENT

This is a final report filed by the PSI of Ashoknagar P.S against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 324, 504 of Indian Penal Code.

2. BRIEF FACTS:-

The case of prosecution is that on 15.04.2021 at about 8.00 A.M in front of building No.55/5 of CW.1, 7th Cross, Rose Garden within the jurisdictional limits of Ashoknagar Police Station the 2 C.C.No.54988/2021 accused has assaulted CW.1 with helmet and intentionally insulted CW.2.

3. Based on the first information of CW.1, the police have registered the case, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation final report filed against the accused.

4. The accused has entered appearance in response to the summons and have been enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused. After hearing, the charge against the accused was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 are exhibited. The statement of the accused is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. The following points arise for my consideration:-

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 15.04.2021 at about 8.00 A.M in front of building No.55/5 of CW.1, 7th Cross, Rose Garden within the jurisdictional limits of Ashoknagar Police Station the accused has assaulted CW.1 with helmet causing injury thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 324 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused has intentionally insulted 3 C.C.No.54988/2021 CW.2 causing breach of peace thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.504 of IPC?

3. What order?

8. My answer to the aforesaid points is as under:-

            Point No.1 and 2 -    In the Negative
            Point No.3        -   As per final order for the following:-

                                  REASONS

9. Point No.1 and 2: As the facts pertaining to these points are related to each other, all these points are taken together for common discussion for brevity.

10. In the instant case PW.1 and PW.2 are the injured who have testified that the accused has neither assaulted with helmet or intentionally insulted them. PW.1 has stated that he has not given the complaint as per Ex.P1 in this regard. Although PW.1 subscribes to his signature appearing in the complaint at Ex.P1, he pleads ignorance to the contents of Ex.P1. PW.1 and PW.2 are treated hostile and cross-examined by the Ld.Sr.APP wherein nothing substantial is elicited in order to support the case of prosecution. PW.1 and PW.2 have stated that they have not given statements as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in this regard. PW.1 and PW.2 admit to have compromised with the accused.

11. This Court was of the opinion that PW.1 and PW.2 are the only material witnesses who have turned hostile and therefore the remaining witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of Ld.Sr.APP.

12. On considering the evidence of PW.1 the complaint at Ex.P1 his evidence appears to be contradictory. The evidence of PW.1 is inconsistent with Ex.P1. The statements of PW.1 and PW.2 are inconsistent with Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. PW.1 and PW.2 have admitted to have compromised with the accused. The prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since there is nothing incriminating against the accused, the only inference that could be drawn is that the accused is innocent of the offences leveled against him. Hence the accused deserves to be acquitted. Therefore I answer point No.1 and 2 in the NEGATIVE.

13. Point No.3: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. accused is hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable u/s.324, 504 of Indian Penal Code.

The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. (Dictated by me on computer, typed by the steno, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 10th January 2022) (G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 5 C.C.No.54988/2021 ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION [ PW.1 Aquinas Vinu PW.2 Janith Mary LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3 Statement of PW.2 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-

NIL (G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 6 C.C.No.54988/2021 10.01.2022 State by APP Accused For Judgment (Judgment passed separately in the Open Court) ORDER Acting u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. accused is hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable u/s.324, 504 of Indian Penal Code.

The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.

XXIX ACMM